| Message ID | 20150811170358.GA26901@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue 11-08-15 19:03:58, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > Preparation to hide the sb->s_writers internals from xfs and btrfs. > Add 2 trivial define's they can use rather than play with ->s_writers > directly. No changes in btrfs/transaction.o and xfs/xfs_aops.o. > > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Looks good. You can add: Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.com> Honza > --- > fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 8 ++------ > fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c | 6 ++---- > include/linux/fs.h | 5 +++++ > 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c > index 5628e25..6dca4e9 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c > @@ -1620,9 +1620,7 @@ static void do_async_commit(struct work_struct *work) > * Tell lockdep about it. > */ > if (ac->newtrans->type & __TRANS_FREEZABLE) > - rwsem_acquire_read( > - &ac->root->fs_info->sb->s_writers.lock_map[SB_FREEZE_FS-1], > - 0, 1, _THIS_IP_); > + __sb_acquire_write(ac->root->fs_info->sb, SB_FREEZE_FS); > > current->journal_info = ac->newtrans; > > @@ -1661,9 +1659,7 @@ int btrfs_commit_transaction_async(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, > * async commit thread will be the one to unlock it. > */ > if (ac->newtrans->type & __TRANS_FREEZABLE) > - rwsem_release( > - &root->fs_info->sb->s_writers.lock_map[SB_FREEZE_FS-1], > - 1, _THIS_IP_); > + __sb_release_write(root->fs_info->sb, SB_FREEZE_FS); > > schedule_work(&ac->work); > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c > index a56960d..8034c78 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c > @@ -119,8 +119,7 @@ xfs_setfilesize_trans_alloc( > * We may pass freeze protection with a transaction. So tell lockdep > * we released it. > */ > - rwsem_release(&ioend->io_inode->i_sb->s_writers.lock_map[SB_FREEZE_FS-1], > - 1, _THIS_IP_); > + __sb_release_write(ioend->io_inode->i_sb, SB_FREEZE_FS); > /* > * We hand off the transaction to the completion thread now, so > * clear the flag here. > @@ -171,8 +170,7 @@ xfs_setfilesize_ioend( > * Similarly for freeze protection. > */ > current_set_flags_nested(&tp->t_pflags, PF_FSTRANS); > - rwsem_acquire_read(&VFS_I(ip)->i_sb->s_writers.lock_map[SB_FREEZE_FS-1], > - 0, 1, _THIS_IP_); > + __sb_acquire_write(VFS_I(ip)->i_sb, SB_FREEZE_FS); > > return xfs_setfilesize(ip, tp, ioend->io_offset, ioend->io_size); > } > diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h > index 35ec87e..78ac768 100644 > --- a/include/linux/fs.h > +++ b/include/linux/fs.h > @@ -1362,6 +1362,11 @@ extern struct timespec current_fs_time(struct super_block *sb); > void __sb_end_write(struct super_block *sb, int level); > int __sb_start_write(struct super_block *sb, int level, bool wait); > > +#define __sb_acquire_write(sb, lev) \ > + rwsem_acquire_read(&(sb)->s_writers.lock_map[(lev)-1], 0, 1, _THIS_IP_) > +#define __sb_release_write(sb, lev) \ > + rwsem_release(&(sb)->s_writers.lock_map[(lev)-1], 1, _THIS_IP_) > + > /** > * sb_end_write - drop write access to a superblock > * @sb: the super we wrote to > -- > 1.5.5.1 >
On Thu 13-08-15 11:45:52, Jan Kara wrote: > On Tue 11-08-15 19:03:58, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > Preparation to hide the sb->s_writers internals from xfs and btrfs. > > Add 2 trivial define's they can use rather than play with ->s_writers > > directly. No changes in btrfs/transaction.o and xfs/xfs_aops.o. > > > > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> > > Looks good. You can add: > > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.com> One comment when looking at other patches - I'd prefer somewhat better name than __sb_acquire_write(). It doesn't tell that it's only a trylock acquisition. Maybe something like __sb_writers_acquire_nowait() and then __sb_writers_release()? Honza > > --- > > fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 8 ++------ > > fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c | 6 ++---- > > include/linux/fs.h | 5 +++++ > > 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c > > index 5628e25..6dca4e9 100644 > > --- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c > > +++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c > > @@ -1620,9 +1620,7 @@ static void do_async_commit(struct work_struct *work) > > * Tell lockdep about it. > > */ > > if (ac->newtrans->type & __TRANS_FREEZABLE) > > - rwsem_acquire_read( > > - &ac->root->fs_info->sb->s_writers.lock_map[SB_FREEZE_FS-1], > > - 0, 1, _THIS_IP_); > > + __sb_acquire_write(ac->root->fs_info->sb, SB_FREEZE_FS); > > > > current->journal_info = ac->newtrans; > > > > @@ -1661,9 +1659,7 @@ int btrfs_commit_transaction_async(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, > > * async commit thread will be the one to unlock it. > > */ > > if (ac->newtrans->type & __TRANS_FREEZABLE) > > - rwsem_release( > > - &root->fs_info->sb->s_writers.lock_map[SB_FREEZE_FS-1], > > - 1, _THIS_IP_); > > + __sb_release_write(root->fs_info->sb, SB_FREEZE_FS); > > > > schedule_work(&ac->work); > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c > > index a56960d..8034c78 100644 > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c > > @@ -119,8 +119,7 @@ xfs_setfilesize_trans_alloc( > > * We may pass freeze protection with a transaction. So tell lockdep > > * we released it. > > */ > > - rwsem_release(&ioend->io_inode->i_sb->s_writers.lock_map[SB_FREEZE_FS-1], > > - 1, _THIS_IP_); > > + __sb_release_write(ioend->io_inode->i_sb, SB_FREEZE_FS); > > /* > > * We hand off the transaction to the completion thread now, so > > * clear the flag here. > > @@ -171,8 +170,7 @@ xfs_setfilesize_ioend( > > * Similarly for freeze protection. > > */ > > current_set_flags_nested(&tp->t_pflags, PF_FSTRANS); > > - rwsem_acquire_read(&VFS_I(ip)->i_sb->s_writers.lock_map[SB_FREEZE_FS-1], > > - 0, 1, _THIS_IP_); > > + __sb_acquire_write(VFS_I(ip)->i_sb, SB_FREEZE_FS); > > > > return xfs_setfilesize(ip, tp, ioend->io_offset, ioend->io_size); > > } > > diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h > > index 35ec87e..78ac768 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/fs.h > > +++ b/include/linux/fs.h > > @@ -1362,6 +1362,11 @@ extern struct timespec current_fs_time(struct super_block *sb); > > void __sb_end_write(struct super_block *sb, int level); > > int __sb_start_write(struct super_block *sb, int level, bool wait); > > > > +#define __sb_acquire_write(sb, lev) \ > > + rwsem_acquire_read(&(sb)->s_writers.lock_map[(lev)-1], 0, 1, _THIS_IP_) > > +#define __sb_release_write(sb, lev) \ > > + rwsem_release(&(sb)->s_writers.lock_map[(lev)-1], 1, _THIS_IP_) > > + > > /** > > * sb_end_write - drop write access to a superblock > > * @sb: the super we wrote to > > -- > > 1.5.5.1 > > > -- > Jan Kara <jack@suse.com> > SUSE Labs, CR
On 08/13, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Thu 13-08-15 11:45:52, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Tue 11-08-15 19:03:58, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > Preparation to hide the sb->s_writers internals from xfs and btrfs. > > > Add 2 trivial define's they can use rather than play with ->s_writers > > > directly. No changes in btrfs/transaction.o and xfs/xfs_aops.o. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> > > > > Looks good. You can add: > > > > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.com> > > One comment when looking at other patches - I'd prefer somewhat better name > than __sb_acquire_write(). Yes, __sb_acquire_write() doesn't look nice and I agree with any naming. > It doesn't tell that it's only a trylock > acquisition. Maybe something like But it is not actually "trylock"... This lock was already locked but not by us. __sb_release_write + __sb_acquire_write is used to transfer the ownership, > __sb_writers_acquire_nowait() > > and then > > __sb_writers_release()? so I agree with any naming, I'll update this patch... but perhaps __sb_writers_acquire() without "_nowait" make more sense? Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu 13-08-15 15:17:44, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 08/13, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > On Thu 13-08-15 11:45:52, Jan Kara wrote: > > > On Tue 11-08-15 19:03:58, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > Preparation to hide the sb->s_writers internals from xfs and btrfs. > > > > Add 2 trivial define's they can use rather than play with ->s_writers > > > > directly. No changes in btrfs/transaction.o and xfs/xfs_aops.o. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> > > > > > > Looks good. You can add: > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.com> > > > > One comment when looking at other patches - I'd prefer somewhat better name > > than __sb_acquire_write(). > > Yes, __sb_acquire_write() doesn't look nice and I agree with any > naming. > > > It doesn't tell that it's only a trylock > > acquisition. Maybe something like > > But it is not actually "trylock"... This lock was already locked but > not by us. __sb_release_write + __sb_acquire_write is used to transfer > the ownership, > > > __sb_writers_acquire_nowait() > > > > and then > > > > __sb_writers_release()? > > so I agree with any naming, I'll update this patch... but perhaps > __sb_writers_acquire() without "_nowait" make more sense? OK, drop _nowait - maybe: __sb_writers_acquired() (note the additional 'd' at the end) to suggest that we already hold the lock and only want to tell lockdep about it? Honza
On 08/13, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Thu 13-08-15 15:17:44, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > so I agree with any naming, I'll update this patch... but perhaps > > __sb_writers_acquire() without "_nowait" make more sense? > > OK, drop _nowait - maybe: > > __sb_writers_acquired() > > (note the additional 'd' at the end) to suggest that we already hold the lock > and only want to tell lockdep about it? Agreed! Will do in v3. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c index 5628e25..6dca4e9 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c @@ -1620,9 +1620,7 @@ static void do_async_commit(struct work_struct *work) * Tell lockdep about it. */ if (ac->newtrans->type & __TRANS_FREEZABLE) - rwsem_acquire_read( - &ac->root->fs_info->sb->s_writers.lock_map[SB_FREEZE_FS-1], - 0, 1, _THIS_IP_); + __sb_acquire_write(ac->root->fs_info->sb, SB_FREEZE_FS); current->journal_info = ac->newtrans; @@ -1661,9 +1659,7 @@ int btrfs_commit_transaction_async(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, * async commit thread will be the one to unlock it. */ if (ac->newtrans->type & __TRANS_FREEZABLE) - rwsem_release( - &root->fs_info->sb->s_writers.lock_map[SB_FREEZE_FS-1], - 1, _THIS_IP_); + __sb_release_write(root->fs_info->sb, SB_FREEZE_FS); schedule_work(&ac->work); diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c index a56960d..8034c78 100644 --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c @@ -119,8 +119,7 @@ xfs_setfilesize_trans_alloc( * We may pass freeze protection with a transaction. So tell lockdep * we released it. */ - rwsem_release(&ioend->io_inode->i_sb->s_writers.lock_map[SB_FREEZE_FS-1], - 1, _THIS_IP_); + __sb_release_write(ioend->io_inode->i_sb, SB_FREEZE_FS); /* * We hand off the transaction to the completion thread now, so * clear the flag here. @@ -171,8 +170,7 @@ xfs_setfilesize_ioend( * Similarly for freeze protection. */ current_set_flags_nested(&tp->t_pflags, PF_FSTRANS); - rwsem_acquire_read(&VFS_I(ip)->i_sb->s_writers.lock_map[SB_FREEZE_FS-1], - 0, 1, _THIS_IP_); + __sb_acquire_write(VFS_I(ip)->i_sb, SB_FREEZE_FS); return xfs_setfilesize(ip, tp, ioend->io_offset, ioend->io_size); } diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h index 35ec87e..78ac768 100644 --- a/include/linux/fs.h +++ b/include/linux/fs.h @@ -1362,6 +1362,11 @@ extern struct timespec current_fs_time(struct super_block *sb); void __sb_end_write(struct super_block *sb, int level); int __sb_start_write(struct super_block *sb, int level, bool wait); +#define __sb_acquire_write(sb, lev) \ + rwsem_acquire_read(&(sb)->s_writers.lock_map[(lev)-1], 0, 1, _THIS_IP_) +#define __sb_release_write(sb, lev) \ + rwsem_release(&(sb)->s_writers.lock_map[(lev)-1], 1, _THIS_IP_) + /** * sb_end_write - drop write access to a superblock * @sb: the super we wrote to
Preparation to hide the sb->s_writers internals from xfs and btrfs. Add 2 trivial define's they can use rather than play with ->s_writers directly. No changes in btrfs/transaction.o and xfs/xfs_aops.o. Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> --- fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 8 ++------ fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c | 6 ++---- include/linux/fs.h | 5 +++++ 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)